Different Perspective On Little Bighorn Battle


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > History > Different Perspective On Little Bighorn Battle

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-20-2014, 01:07 PM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,353
Liked 2106 Times on 1139 Posts
Likes Given: 3168

Default Different Perspective On Little Bighorn Battle

In the early 1900s a gent named Edward S. Curtis realized that some of G. A. Custer's Crow scouts were still living. Curtis set about interviewing those scouts. Crow scouts claimed Custer sat on his horse on Weir Point, watching Reno get his butt kicked, refusing to come to Reno's aid.

Curtis had a big problem, the scouts version of the Little Bighorn battle would fly in the face of the official US Army version and the version being touted in lectures all over the country by Custer's widow, Libby.

Quote:
For Curtis, the battle’s pivotal point, as related by the Crows, occurred atop Weir Point. From there, the scouts and Custer watched warriors armed with bows and arrows, firearms and war clubs swarm Reno and his troops. With no reinforcements in sight, Reno halted his command, dismounted and formed a skirmish line. According to the narrative of White Man Runs Him, as recorded by Curtis:

“Custer was watching them all this time. I was coaxing Custer to fight, but he said: ‘Let them fight. We will have our chance.’”

Shortly afterward the scouts departed, released from their duty and advised to “save your selves.”

Curtis was certain the scouts spoke the truth. At the same time he realized their story belied widely accepted beliefs affixed to Custer’s defeat: chief among them was that Major Reno’s betrayal of Custer was prime cause for the debacle. Had Reno pressed an aggressive attack as expected of him, Custer would not have been left to wage a desperate struggle. In the Crow accounts, however, Reno was the betrayed and Custer the betrayer. In “Notes on Custer Battle and Field,” Curtis wrote:

“The point I want to make clear is that, according to this evidence, Custer sat on this high point and saw Reno make the mistake of dismounting his troops — if it was a mistake; saw the opening of the fight; the men beginning to give way slowly at first, then in confusion and disorder, little groups here and there making their own stubborn fight without a commander to properly direct them, men trying to pick up wounded comrades, trying to drag them to concealment in the brush; saw and must have known that Reno had lost control of his command … watched all of this from 45 to 60 minutes … and that whole fight was so close to him that he could have been in the thick of it in five minutes … had he got to the aid of Reno, the Sioux would have been routed in half an hour, without doubt.”

http://www.bigskyjournal.com/articles/big-sky-journal/summer-2011/130/images-of-the-west-fallen-heroes.html


Curtis went to US president T. Roosevelt who asked him not to write the scouts eyewitness accounts of the Little Bighorn battle. Curtis obeyed.

The Curtis notes became available in the 1990s.

http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/goes-ahead/


__________________
alsaqr is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 08-24-2014, 08:21 PM   #2
Weapons Aficianado
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Threetango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: South Carolina, a gun friendly state.
Posts: 2,554
Liked 4683 Times on 1593 Posts
Likes Given: 1442

Default

Witnesses said Reno was drunk and couldn't make a rational decision.
He also rode out of a copse of woods where his dismounted men were, yelling "save yourselves".
Both Reno and Benteen his lead commanders had an intense dislike of Custer.



__________________

NSDQ

Threetango is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 06:27 PM   #3
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,353
Liked 2106 Times on 1139 Posts
Likes Given: 3168

Default

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Witnesses said Reno was drunk and couldn't make a rational decision.
Show me.
__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 06:58 PM   #4
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mercator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,546
Liked 1928 Times on 1336 Posts
Likes Given: 987

Default

Interesting! It is very possible that these eyewitness notes were truthful. But the old scouts were human too, with their own likes and grudges. Time also plays tricks on your memory. Chances are we will never know for sure what exactly went down there.

__________________
"You can't reason with a flying crowbar"
Mercator is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 08:07 PM   #5
Weapons Aficianado
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Threetango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: South Carolina, a gun friendly state.
Posts: 2,554
Liked 4683 Times on 1593 Posts
Likes Given: 1442

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Show me.
It was stated more than once in both books I listed above from cavalrymen who were with him and not just one or two..

Here's a couple of accounts





Read the books, both authors did a good amount of research and yes over time memories can change but Reno's being drunk didn't.

Don't get me started on Benteen's inaction.
__________________

NSDQ

Threetango is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2014, 03:03 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 209
Liked 50 Times on 37 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

I have Ancestors on both sides. Not at the Little Big Horn though.
I understand the First Americans were fighting for their survival. this was one battle. The 7th Calvary or US Army was fighting to eliminate First Americans or put them into corners of the Country, effectively jails, and on the dole so they could keep them from attacking or fighting back.
They often cite barbarity of Indians forgetting their own barbarism. The Winners write the history books. to give a little perspective to it. During jackson's time and back before Washington, there was a saying started by the English. "Nits make lice." It was in reference the slaaughter of Native women and children, so they could not produce the next generation of lice. In south America the Europeans were and are still doing the same kind of things. They shoot natives or Indians, as sport at such places as river crossings or anytime they can get away with it, which is most of the time. The government looks the other way, and doesn't care. Dad and family wouldn't talk about Indian Ancestry. Grand Ma was refereed to as Black Dutch. Until 1924 Indians could not own property, so they called themselves Black Dutch, Black Irish and so on. In 1924, I think Alabama finally made it against the law to kill an Indian. White Man could simply walk onto your place and take everything and kill you with impunity. To be referred to as Indian was the same as calling someone a niger.

__________________
tinbucket is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2014, 03:20 AM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mercator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,546
Liked 1928 Times on 1336 Posts
Likes Given: 987

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinbucket View Post
I have Ancestors on both sides. Not at the Little Big Horn though.
I understand the First Americans were fighting for their survival. this was one battle. The 7th Calvary or US Army was fighting to eliminate First Americans or put them into corners of the Country, effectively jails, and on the dole so they could keep them from attacking or fighting back.
They often cite barbarity of Indians forgetting their own barbarism. The Winners write the history books. to give a little perspective to it. During jackson's time and back before Washington, there was a saying started by the English. "Nits make lice." It was in reference the slaaughter of Native women and children, so they could not produce the next generation of lice. In south America the Europeans were and are still doing the same kind of things. They shoot natives or Indians, as sport at such places as river crossings or anytime they can get away with it, which is most of the time. The government looks the other way, and doesn't care. Dad and family wouldn't talk about Indian Ancestry. Grand Ma was refereed to as Black Dutch. Until 1924 Indians could not own property, so they called themselves Black Dutch, Black Irish and so on. In 1924, I think Alabama finally made it against the law to kill an Indian. White Man could simply walk onto your place and take everything and kill you with impunity.
Indians could not own property? Many Indians owned slaves.
Quote:
To be referred to as Indian was the same as calling someone a niger.
This is simply not true.
Quote:
In south America the Europeans were and are still doing the same kind of things.
This is outright nonsense. I don't care who you are, family tales are one thing, history is another.
__________________
"You can't reason with a flying crowbar"

Last edited by Mercator; 08-26-2014 at 03:26 AM.
Mercator is offline  
CaptMidnight Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2014, 04:26 AM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,071
Liked 1579 Times on 1077 Posts
Likes Given: 544

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercator View Post
Indians could not own property? Many Indians owned slaves. This is simply not true.
This is outright nonsense. I don't care who you are, family tales are one thing, history is another.
I would like to see proof that Indians were legally allowed to own slaves by the US government. I know that Indians kept slaves of their own accord and by tribal law, but never did the US Government permit Native Americans to own slaves plantation style as in the old south.

Native Americans were not even considered US citizens until 1924. Before 1924 Native Americans were considered as wards of the state. They couldn't even travel without severe restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights
__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2014, 11:18 AM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mercator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,546
Liked 1928 Times on 1336 Posts
Likes Given: 987

Default

The Cherokee Nation was the largest but not the only slaveholder among the Indian tribes. They held slaves in the South and took them to the Indian Territory. The tribal constitution made slavery law. Most Cherokees sided with the Confederacy. The Chief became a general. It is a seldom discussed part of history, out of the usual liberal and perhaps self-serving considerations.

Most Cherokee people did not own slaves, as most whites didn't. Those who did held Negro slaves the same way, plantation style.

The draconian treatment of Native Americans by the government is well documented. Mixing it up with slavery is intellectually dishonest.

__________________
"You can't reason with a flying crowbar"

Last edited by Mercator; 08-26-2014 at 11:28 AM.
Mercator is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2014, 02:56 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CaptMidnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: FBO Mountain Home
Posts: 85
Liked 50 Times on 37 Posts
Likes Given: 49

Default

Col. Standing Wate of the Cherokee Mounted Rifles was the last Rebels to surrender. Chief John Ross signed the agreement to allow the Nation to support the Southern Confederacy. The Indian tribes fought to keep their Black slaves.
It was the introduction of Christianity that ended the cannibalism and slavery of the late stone age people. Many small tribes joined the Europeans through out the 3 centuries of strife in America.
As for Gen. Custer. G.A. Custer was a Democrat in the Northern Republican Army. The Northern press and politicians waged a never ending battle against Custer. It is difficult to tell fiction from fact.



__________________
CaptMidnight is offline  
Mercator Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Bighorn gun safe sbach311 Gun Safes 1 08-17-2013 04:31 AM
Memorial Day Perspective.. LikeABoss The Club House 0 05-27-2012 03:36 PM
Little Bighorn HKSlinger The Club House 36 03-10-2011 03:43 AM
I offer this as yet another perspective Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 0 12-12-2008 06:42 PM
A change of perspective cnorman18 The Club House 1 07-31-2007 11:19 PM